Take That, Al Baby! Monckton Makes It to the Glenn Beck Radio Program...and Beyond Glenn Beck's third hour of radio this morning delivered a significant blow to the international treaty President Obama is expected to sign in Copenhagen in early December. Mr. Beck spoke for approximately fifteen minutes with Lord Christoper Monckton. A former advisor on science policy to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Monckton has become known around the world as the "Anti Al Gore."

Those who read my previous article, or who have now seen the video of Lord Monckton's October 14th lecture at Bethel University, will already know that his message now extends beyond the global warming lie itself. Rather his Lordship is busily sounding an alarm about where that lie will shortly take us if we do not act quickly to stop it.

Beck and Monckton clearly have an easy conversational rapport. The two have spoken in the past, and both possess an excellent sense of humor. A few humorous moments aside, though, the seriousness of the subject before them was clearly driving the discussion part 1, discussion part 2 .

Monckton began with some backstory on the treaty President Obama is expected to sign in a few weeks' time. The plan it contains was apparently worked out in large measure at the 2007 Conference of the States' Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, Indonesia. It's is the same conference that will reconvene in Copenhagen on-how oddly symbolic-December 7th of this year.

Let's not pretend. George W. Bush failed repeatedly to protect our southern border in any meaningful way. That said, he was no friend to the UNFCCC. One has to give the man credit for rightly maintaining during his eight years in office that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and any international agreement that smelled like it, remained an exceptionally bad idea for U.S. business and, um, what's that word again...? Oh yes...sovereignty. So, the UNFCCC has been biding its time. Now that W. is out of the way, they're ready to push ahead with the aims he inconveniently refused to share.

What precisely are the UNFCCC's aims where the Copenhagen treaty is concerned? Monckton summarized plainly: "There will be a new, vast, interlocking, bureaucratic entity created at huge expense to you and me, and that bureaucratic entity will have three purposes, the first of which is twice stated to be government."*

The second purpose, Monckton continued, involves the broad transfer of wealth from first-world countries like the U.S. and Western European nations to the Third World for what is described as "climate debt." Here, then, is the reparations scam about which I wrote a few days ago. Billed as horrible, nasty, wasty polluters, we will be forced to pay up 2% of our GDP as payment for having ruined the earth for the people of poorer nations around the world. Never mind that we've now largely cleaned up after ourselves. Also, one needs to ignore the fact that some of the very nations to which our "we're-so-sorry-we've-been-horrible-monsters" money will go are now entering their own industrial periods and have begun belching out "dangerous" carbon emissions in precisely the same manner we used to do. Something is distinctly rotten in the State of Denmark.

The third task the treaty lays out is enforcement. The new government the document establishes will have the power to force countries to pay their specified contributions whether they like it or not. I have not yet perused the treaty closely enough to understand fully the nature of the enforcement program or the degree to which it is has been laid out. However, Monckton did explain that it describes "a series of interlocking, technical panels that will have the right directly to intervene in the economies and the environments of individual countries over the heads of their elected governments" (emphasis mine)

Monckton made no bones as to his assessment. The Copenhagen treaty, he asserts, goes much further than any previous document. It amounts to a fledgling communist world government.

Anyone who follows me on Twitter will know that just after President Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize, I alluded to it as a form of political bribery or graft. Monckton similarly labeled it during last week's dinner conversation and reiterated that opinion today in speaking with Mr. Beck: "The danger is, now that he's been given his Nobel Peace Prize, if he goes to Copenhagen with Al Gore at one elbow and [NASA's] Jim Hansen at the other, in front the keening zombies in their tens of thousands, he'll sign anything," Monckton remarked. "And he won't have read the small print. Nobody seems to have read the small print until I picked it up. It's quite extraordinary that this has got as far as it has with nobody noticing."

Monckton continued by identifying one of the treaties key origins: "Morris Strong, a Canadian bureaucrat who originally set up the structure of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) some 20-odd years ago...always wanted [it] to transmogrify into a world government, and he's now going to get his way far faster than any of us had realized unless we can stop him."

Beck and Monckton then launched into a discussion of how Congress will respond to the Copenhagen treaty. The Constitution's treaty clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that "[the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Monckton seemed quite doubtful that President Obama could count on a super-majority of that nature for this treaty.

Consequently, his Lordship strongly suspects that the administration would make an end run around the two-thirds rule by pushing for a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Far more likely to succeed, this strategy would enact the Copenhagen treaty into U.S. domestic, as opposed to international, law. Unlike a foreign treaty-from which it would be extremely difficult to resile-domestic legislation could potentially be repealed. Theoretically, that's a slightly less disastrous scenario. But for realists, the handwriting is on the wall: Should Congress enact such sweeping policy, even on a domestic level, the last finger will have been pulled from the protective dike that is U.S. sovereignty. It would not take long for that fact to become formally recognized.

In response to Monckton's conjectures about the way the treaty would be maneuvered into passage, Beck aptly noted that when the Left cannot get Congress to pass its cherished agendas, it has a history of enlisting cities and states to litigate those matters in court. Such actions have the effect of leaving a wide swath of judicial record-and often a very false impression about the movement of the country on those issues. Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to rule on any related matters, such "movement" would likely prove a factor in deliberations. Beck's fears on this score are unquestionably well founded.

Nevertheless, Monckton cited an important obstacle that now lies in the Left's path if it attempts this sort of litigious route...

Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, has in the last two months, released a salient (understatement of the year) study on climate feedbacks. Simple in concept but meticulous in execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of outgoing radiation into space.

Al Gore and those with whom the former vice president aligns himself claim, of course, that such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous warming. Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such radiation has continued escaping out into space at rates that would seem finally to put an end the global warming scare. Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2 on temperature over the course of the next century will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as 1° F. These projections amount to less than one sixth of what the U.N. claims and are, quite simply, negligible.

Better still, where all previous projections were based solely on computer modeling-much of it wildly biased-Lindzen's projections are based on hard data accumulated over the course of 20 years. Monckton had actually published a paper last year that arrived at the same conclusions from a theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously conducted science backs him up.

Naturally, others will want to examine and test Linden's findings. But once his study and the careful workmanship with which he executed it gain wider exposure-and it shouldn't take long-Congress will find it much harder to justify any treaty that attempts to leverage the exposed lie of anthropogenic climate change.

Be watching everyone. Mr. Beck is not done with this topic. He's invited Lord Monckton to spend a full hour on his Fox News television program. Expect further discussion around the treaty's content, the political maneuvering involved in positioning it, and the implications for all of us should it be enacted in any manner. And look for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton to be present for that discussion as well. No date has yet been announced, but Monckton will be in range of New York later this week.